Forum:Wikia asks us to censor iconic photo

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 607 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This one peeves me off. Wikia asked us to remove this iconic picture of children running from U.S. troops in Vietnam (the chop puts a plane in there too, haha), which includes a young girl who has torn her clothes off because they were burning from napalm. I think the original photo may be a Pulitzer Prize winner. For Wikia to think this is porn, or child porn (fap fap fap???), takes the censorship issue to a new level. Doesn't mean I'm going to leave this side of our island, but we need to liberate it, get rid of that content warning, and call them on stupid things like this. Aleister 1:26 27-3-'13

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not censored while we are, so your argument is kind of insubstantial there. I suppose Wikia would allow it if the girl were edited to be engulfed in flames? As burning children alive is of course preferable to nude ones.◄► UnUnUn ium ◄► 22:42, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not censored, so I can link their page here on the young woman who was burned by napalm in the Vietnam War, and you can read what happened to her then and how she's lived her life since. If she was covered with flames then you would not see her nude, so yes, for the likelihood of the photo not being censored, it would have been better if the napalm had started her on fire which would have hid her human parts, and thus fit under wikia's idea of "something alright to look at". Can someone chop her on fire and see if wikia accepts that? Thanks. Aleister 00:22 28-3-'13

I can set her alight for you. It will become a new iconic image, one representing the idiocy of censorship.◄► UnUnUn ium ◄► 01:49, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Here you go, I set her on fire, the irony of which is pure pathos, but at least she isn't nude! I should get a Pulitzer for this...

Thanks, perfect, and a great idea. This is what she'd look like if she hadn't taken her clothes off and let the napalm eat at her. On this forum on the other site someone chopped a pic of Jimbo Wales chasing her with censorship bars. I suggested setting her on fire on that one, mentioning you as the "thinker-upper" of the idea. Nice work, and thanks to DuPont for the long-lasting napalm. Aleister 10:28 28-3-'13

Contents

I agree with Wikia

In the context of a humor wiki, that is a shock image. It includes underage nudity and real-life war carnage, albeit, its not quite a snuff image. This site is about satire, it is not about being "funny" by violating every standard of decency. --Mn-z 13:20, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

There is no war carnage, as there are no dead bodies, just a frightened girl who had napalm on her clothes and took them off quickly (maybe she got a little burned, or maybe she's an exhibitionist, the jury is still out). It is a satire on an iconic war photo which won the pulitzer prize and, as MrN points out, was on the front page of the New York Times (always an indicator of good taste). So with this photo a plane is expertly added to fit the black and white pic. The satire of the plane could be described as an added assult on the young children from the American agressors, that "If we can't get them from the sky we're sure as hell going to run them down" (which would be a good caption, hmmmmmm, dibs on that one). So it isn't a shock image, it's only underage nudity if you forget the historical and iconic context of the pic, it's not showing war carnage or dead bodies - or even anyone under attack, they may be racing for an ice-cream truck - so no standard of decency has been violated in any way. I think we should actually play with more variations on the theme using this photo, both here and "abroad". Aleister 14:17 29-3-'13

I deleted this on Sannse's request because the naked child was gratuitous. Its only use on Uncyclopedia was to joke about a new pilot acquiring the power to mow down pedestrians and there was no need for one of them to be a naked child. Aleister, you are correct that the basis for this Shoop is a classic photo and that it is hardly masturbation material unavailable elsewhere on the web, including on that website that we parody. But very many viewers don't know about its Pulitzer Prize nor even that it was taken in Vietnam. On your additional defense of the photo as an illustration of American "aggression" (or was it the honoring of a mutual defense treaty?), please put a lid on the political activism and focus on the issue which, on this side, includes not poking fingers in Wikia's eyes except when authentic humor would suffer. SpıkeѦ14:33 29-Mar-13

Historically, they were American aggressors, but there's no need for them to be from any specific country in the parody version. The plane in the background adding to the aggressors chasing the children adds a parody factor, and unfortunately one of the children happened to be naked, which violates Wikia's TOS. I still find it an unfortunate coincidence that depicting a child on fire seems to be preferable here to depicting a child without clothes, though I can understand the rationale behind it. I just wish the rules were more flexible, especially in the case of a historic picture like this one. However, I agree with Spike that the nudity does not contribute to the parody in this particular case. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 15:26, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. So I used the fire-girl pic on "United States Air Force" in a new "History gallery" section, in which I'll put in five or so more pics, from the First World War on up, telling some of the history of the Air Force (which is for some reason missing from this page. It reads like a recruitment poster, at least on first glance. So the history section in pictures should be fun. Thanks for the inspiration. Aleister 18:00 29-3-'13

Hello ointment

Clarify

My point isn't the nudity as such, it's using an image of a naked and burning child as humor. If the image were on a history wiki (and it is on a wiki about Vietnam, iirc) I would have passed it instantly. But, here... as something to laugh at? That I find offensive -- sannse (talk) 19:10, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

That is something I am less comfortable with. If the logic behind the deletion was naked child is bad then I'd accept it, even if I dislike it. But the logic behind the deletion is more related to treating the image with a lack of reverence, for want of a better term. As HTBFANJS states, humour is based on status change. The ability to take that which is deserving of respect and recast it in a light that shows a lack of respect is a major part of humour. It's the same reason why your This is not a potato image makes me laugh.

I'm not going to fight to the death on this image - personally I just think it's not that good quality and have argued against it's use elsewhere here due to lack of humour value. But I'm uncomfortable with deleting an image based upon what is essentially a personal delineator of good taste/bad taste without having communal input. Part of the inherent value of a wiki is that communal decisions outweigh personal perspective - this decision defeats that perspective. • Puppy's talk page • 08:47 02 Apr 2013

(my first reaction: Oh. My. Goddess). Sannse, this is a satire wiki. A big part of our mission, as satirists, is to comment on history in ways which educate. This photograph is one of the great pictures of the 20th century in the area of defining war, the terror and horror of it. That's why it's called "iconic". It is one of the two most important photographs which defined the travesty of the United States partaking in a war which even its architects have admitted was a mistake. It's in the public consciousness as an informational touchstone. It says that this horror occurred, it affected millions of people's lives, it was an invasion which harmed children, animals, the rain forests (turning the jungles into "weedy lots"). So, if the photoshopped picture can teach young people about what occurred - which can be done with captions as I've done on the U.S. Air Force page which uses the child on fire - then it is political educational satire communicated via an iconic image. It's much more than just a child on fire, it's not just "something to laugh at", it's a teaching tool. Your offense is also justified as a valid point of view. It is horror, it is terror. But if done right, I think it educates about an entire war policy which changed American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian culture. Aleister 20:56 2-4-'13

I concur with Puppy. Full frontal nudity without a humor purpose is my disqualifier; tastelessness and lack of reverence certainly is not. Aleister, I appreciate your presence despite your unconditional blame-America-first viewpoint, but I sure as hell wish you'd stop using this site--and a side controversy where you happen to be on the right side--as an excuse to "teach" this personal ideology. SpıkeѦ22:00 2-Apr-13

Political cartoons have used humor and satire for a "teaching" purpose for as long as they have been around. Satire can be have a point of view, even be persuasive, and still be satire. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 22:24, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Spike, we're talking about the Vietnam War in particular when we talk about this photograph, and of course I blame-American first in regards to that "conflict". Robert McNamara eventually did too, and he designed much of the war policy! And teaching, educating, and sharing data is a primary role - probably the most important role - of satire. Funnybony and I have done some really good pages together operating from this attitude. If I wasn't sharing information in many of the pages I've written I wouldn't be writing this kind of prose. On other pages I just play. It's fun both ways. Aleister 22:58 2-4-'13

I disagree that teaching, educating, and sharing data is a primary role, or the most important role of satire. Some satire is used this way, but I think even things like political satire, which may or may not have an obvious underlining agenda, are less about teaching than about getting those who already agree with the viewpoint to laugh at their opponents or their opponents to laugh at themselves over the exaggerated truth. This is not teaching. And in my opinion, if teaching is your primary concern, it is not just satire, it is propaganda.◄► UnUnUn ium ◄► 06:03, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

"Satire is a genre of literature... in which vices... are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement." (from WP:Satire). • Puppy's talk page • 07:19 03 Apr 2013

While one might compare shaming and teaching as similar concepts, I would not make that connection within this context. Shaming is reaffirming what you already know to be true - though deny, teaching is telling you what you did not already know or fully understand. Uncyclopedia should not and would not succeed at teaching anything, but may possibly invoke shame. Perhaps this is no more than a matter of semantics, but I will stand by my belief that if we attempt to teach or educate through Uncyclopedia, it is closer to propaganda than satire.◄► UnUnUn ium ◄► 07:42, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Teacher! Leave those kids alone! Regarding war or Vietnam in particular, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bob Newhart, Preston Sturges, Paul Krassner, Bill Hicks, Phil Ochs, Catch-22, MASH, leave those kids alone! No, it's not propaganda, it's satire, which Mark Twain or somebody on that level said education is it's main purpose. I like Funnybony's work in this regard, he educates a lot! And by education I mean just sharing data, not necessary creating a political argument. Even my new moon page puts a few concepts out there that someone may find a curiosity about. This is a discussion that can go on for a long time, and is aside from the photo in question and the way it was decided to remove it. Aleister 10:29 3-4-'13

The fact that it's an iconic photo is the only reason that in other contexts (like the history wiki I mentioned) it gets a pass for child nudity. (Almost) any other photo that showed child nudity of that level would have to go for sure. But it's the "in context" part that's important in this specific case. Satire doesn't mean "anything goes", and the image was certainly not being used in some high moral educational purpose. I imagine there are hundreds of people running that could replace it with no change in the meaning or humor (other than the whole not-using-photos-of-burning-kids-for-a-laugh bit) -- sannse (talk) 21:48, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed I've used the new photograph in context in the United States Air Force article, in which an entire section of maybe five pics and captions will cover the history of air way in the 20th and 21st centuries. I'll look at the caption again, and see if it can be polished just a little more. It's a good pic, and works well in this context. Aleister 00:51 4-4-'13 (45th anniversary of Dr. King's - an anti-Vietnam war demonstrator, writer, and speaker - death)

The American Pro-Jingo! Team prepare their blocks for the next exciting championship level game of Jingo!

There is no humour inherent within the original source image that any rightminded individual can claim, however the use of image itself isn't intended to be viewed as stand alone humour, like an image of the coffins of dead soldiers it is used in the context of highlighting an important point in the name of satire. To place censorship on what can and can't be used for satire runs counter to the founding principles of Uncyclopedia and humour itself.

Accusations of moral turpitude should be discussed by the community here, but issues of what should be allowed on the site should remain a decision of the community itself. If the image "passes" on a history wiki I think its only personal opinion and/or Wikia's fear of association that raises the issue here. As Wikia knew what Uncyclopedia was when they "acquired" us I would suggest the issue of association is mostly down to having .wikia.com in the domain. Maybe reverting to uncyclopedia.org would remedy this to ease the issue for poor Wikia? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Mhaille comes from the ether to replace white space with words of wisdom (the magic(k) of the internet in the hands of a true magician). Sannse, can we have the image back again? Thanks. Aleister 12:12 5-4-'13

I agree with everything Mhaille says. Indeed what we should be doing is stealing photos of no inherent humor and adding it with captions and context, rather than stealing comics from The Far Side and Garfield where someone else supplied the humor or the gravitas. But I do not believe Wikia, if its fear is corporate reputation, boycotts, lawsuits, and so on, would find it sufficient simply to hide behind a URL that concealed its ownership.

Am disappointed that Aleister and Simsie, above, both used my unfortunate mention of "blame-America-first" in a page that was discussing censorship to digress to whether or not the blame-America-first position is valid. Yes, Simsie, satire and advocacy coincide; likewise satire and pornography, likewise satire and ads for Diet Coke. Your argument is deconstruction; the key thing is not what It Is About but the author's motive. (I do not know any Vietnamese peasants, naked or otherwise, but think that using dead American military people for "comedy" is at least as improper.) Aleister has parlayed this discussion, and the new Shoop, into an article that, evidenced by his remarks above, is explicitly advocacy, with the added glee of tweaking Sannse's nose, winning a debate with her by stepping around the specifics. SpıkeѦ12:14 5-Apr-13

Censorship is a good debate to enter, on either side of a question such as this. Apologies to Spike if you have or had someone involved in the Vietnam war, which was a turning point regarding many things in American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and world history. Funnybony has some ver good pages about the war and how it affected him. You mention advocacy once in awhile. That's a valid term on wikipedia, but I don't consider it valid here, within a realm of satire. And from one's point of view, almost anything can be considered advocacy. Aleister 12:39 5-4-'13

p.s. I'm against the use of showing wounds or dead bodies on uncy too, except for mummies. I guess that's where I draw my line at censorship. But coffins are not dead bodies, they just imply without showing whatever.